One day we will find out the story behind the single biggest error of the 2012 Campaign:
Why Obama was Comatose in his First Debate with Romney?
______________________________
The date was the 20th Wedding Anniversary of the Obamas.
It would be typical in most families that a marital dispute arises and influences one's work performance.
A new flat screen tv instead of an expected diamond.
The Obamas may be no different.
_______________________________
Sometimes simple familial spats can change the direction of a nation.
Recall one Bill Clinton, Hilliary Clinton and an intern.
This is a Homer Simpson in every man.

"because the Republicans, if they are sensible.." This statement resonates about as much as "because the sun, if it rises in the west tomorrow ...."

The GOP will no doubt go on as it began, only instead of announcing that its primary goal would be to deny Mr. Obama a second term will vow to make his second term a miserable failure regardless of any damage to the nation as a whole. This time they won't say it in their out loud voices but the sentiment will be roughly the same.

The question is, are they willing to cut entitlements for today's seniors, right now, and tell those seniors the fact that the generations following are less well off, in part as a result of their actions?

Or will they continue to pander to Generation Greed?

How much of the savings from increasing the Medicare eligibility age, as opposed to halting and partially the real increase in spending per recipient, would result in people dying before they became eligible for benefits?

Considering the Republicans' cynical strategy over the previous four years to obstruct the public interest for selfish political gain, and the current majority in the House, it's highly unlikely that President Obama will be able to get much done for the next two years. As long as the Republican party is held hostage by Norquist et. al, it is wishful thinking to assume that they will take up a more moderate position.

Hopefully, the Democrats will be able to recapture the House come 2014.

I believe that there are some smart people in the GOP who actually know what they would need to do to become a majority party.

Unfortunately any attempt to move the party towards the center e.g. to drop specific policy positions on gay marriage or abortion and declare them 'matters of personal conscience' will be thwarted by ultra-conservative candidates who win the primaries.

Their problem is not that they didn't quite win the popular vote (it was a narrow margin) - their problem is that their current coalition is shrinking and, if nothing changes, it'll just get worse ...

Why is it that most post-election summary that I read here and elsewhere appears to suggest that the gridlock of the past 4 years is Obama's fault? I mean, is it not abundantly clear that the "other" party in this situation - namely Congressional Republicans - have made it their sole mission to NOT cooperate with Obama so that he will not be re-elected?

Without question Obama and the Democrats bear some responsibility for the lack of progress in Washington over the past four years. But it takes two to tango. Checks and balances. Three branches of government. All that stuff.

If the Republicans are now singing a happy tune saying they want to do what is "best for the country" then the Democrats need to respond in kind. But let's at least be honest with ourselves: the only reason Boehner and McConnell are suddenly willing to cooperate is that they just failed at getting Obama out of office and recognize that their party's best option for improving its political standing is to strike a deal - even if it includes taxes.

So... Winning the election means you must adopt your opponents agenda completely? I am sorry you are continuing the narrative that Obama refused to reach out to Republicans. I suggest you go over the repeated attempts at compromise during healthcare that simply were not reciprocated at all.

Agree. I don't understand why the Economist keeps overlooking this (well, actually I do- they're being dishonest). Obama though, in much the way a parent must work with a spolit child, must still reach out and make things happen. This article, much like the Economist's endorsement of Obama, is (not very) subtely damming Obam with false praise. Obviously, Romney was unelectable, and obviously, hte Republican party is over run by nut jobs but nevertheless, the Economist does not like Obama. Hence, this damming praise and thinly veiled criticism at every opportunity.

Not simply a spoilt child, but a teenager afflicted with Oppositional Defiant Disorder who will do anything, no matter how personally destructive it is, so long as it hurts the family he or she belongs to. The Republicans go on and on about sacrosanct family values, while doing everything in their power to injure the American Family they claim to be defending.

What would be good is to turn the other cheek and keep on working at it. This notion from posters on these comments pages that all Republicans are the same is frankly disappointing. If you assume that all Republicans are out to be stubborn and willful, then you are missing a chance to reach out to the ones that are willing to work.

1. Obama was elected largely for not being Bush-Cheney-Rowe. He was re-elected for essentially the same reason.

Romney = Bush-Cheney-Rowe redux: reckless conflict with China; war in the Persian/Arabian Gulf; regressive tax cuts without politically-realistic tax reform; regressive social insurance cuts without politically-realistic entitlement reform; unmoored national security expenditures; neutered financial regulators [among others]; "outsourced" energy/environmental policy; "outsourced" Near-Eastern foreign policy; state-sponsored social conformity; etc., etc., etc. Even worse - the Administration would have been buffaloed by a triumphant and ideological-pure Congress and party elite. In short, there would have been no credible post-election return to the center.

Politics is 90% marketing spin, 9% team sport, and 1% "rounding error". The real villain is crass human nature - i.e., the need to identify the "other" and to blame "them" for all troubles and frustrations [with special credit going to organized religion]. P.S. [Mr. Editor] The teacher's unions are, in fact, not the devil incarnate - no matter how editorially convenient they may be as a whipping boy.

This is plainly wrong, at least with the American definition of "conservative" and "liberal". Party identification is a good approximation of political identity, and the numbers associating with each party show that conservatives do not outnumber liberals at all, much less "handily".

How does the GOP still enjoy such a majority in the House? It looks like the Democratic Party got just over half the popular vote for House reps, too, but the districts are so distorted that the GOP still holds the majority of seats.

Rather than hug a Republican, I would prefer that Mr. Obama repair Congress.

Intrigued by your assessment that it was mere luck that Obama won. Mere luck that the economy is looking up a bit, and so ...

Now one could equally make the case that he succeeded even though he was unlucky. Unlucky that he started his presidency by inheriting an economic crisis that was becoming even bigger with each passing day, , unlucky that EU went into a tail spin, unlucky that within days of his inauguration he had to face a hostile overtly racist tea party that was well funded, unlucky that he had a speaker of the house who even before the cheers had died down stated that his only legislative goal was to make Obama a one term president; and so on ....

The third narrative could be that he was pragmatic, he was willing to offend both the left and the right, he was determined and disciplined, he eschewed vain empty rhetoric to doggedly do the day to day things that are required to be done, that he made mistakes but was willing to learn and that he was far less vainglorious than most politicians. No Drama Obama is not good for op-eds, cable TV,blogs and tweets. But it is useful for the economy and society.

There should be a "Don't Like' button. First, this paper continually demonstrates its poor analysis when considering Mr. Obama. Somehow, it is the GOP that has 'barmy' numbers and is focused on abortion and gay rights. Mr. Romney consistently wanted to focus on the economy during the general campaign. It was the attacks from the democrats that brought in contraception (an utterly false attack) and abortion. Barring Mr. Obama's politically expedient switch to support gay marriage, homosexuality was not a general campaign discussion.

And what, pray tell, is the argument FOR Mr. Obama? A question this paper consistently avoided asking. We had two arguments before us; One had little detail, but was full of ideas that could be discussed and debated by the people's representatives. The other was 'Trust me, this will eventually work.' And somehow, this paper decided for the latter. Sound analysis would clearly fall to the former given the fact, much described in your pages, about the actual lack of power the president has to effect this changes without the complicity of the people's representatives. Somehow, this truth, albeit poorly phrased by Mr. Romney, was ignored by The Economist.

Our country will suffer greatly for this lack of vision. And we deserve everything we get.

One last barb concerning Mr. Ryan. It was not too long ago when this paper touted him as a Young Gun, up and coming to take a leadership role in the GOP. As I recall, the article was very much in his favor. Oddly, I can't seem to think that it is Mr. Ryan that changed. Perhaps the editorial staff....

I disagree. Mr. Romney should have been, and was, the focus. Mr. Ryan's religion is as relevant as Mr. Biden's. Aside from the question during the VP debate, which I thought was rather odd and poorly inserted, the question never came up. Mr. Romney stated he was personally against abortion, but aside from nominating Supreme Court justices, that would, to a degree be tied to established law, his influence on the topic would be to de-fund Planned Parenthood, and be a voice for the Pro-Life movement. But all that aside, the issue of abortion and homosexuality was simply not a general campaign issue. Mr. Romney was running as a business man that could turn the economy around, and Mr. Obama was running on the idea that his ideas would work (eventually). Where I take issue, or one of the places I take issue, is arguing that Mr. Obama had a plan and Mr. Romney had 'barmy' numbers. Simple political fact, that I imagine most of us would agree with; politicians are limited to what they can openly say. If Mr. Romney stated explicitly he would cut tax exemptions, he would be raked over the coals by the right. Mr. Obama stated he will raise taxes, and did not present a plan to cut entitlement spending. But somehow, The Economist only calls foul on Mr. Romney. There was little meat in either nominee's plan (and that should be the major story for the next four years - how can we make an un-emotional decision when we are only provided with stories to tug at our heart strings and drive our emotions, with little or no meat to actually digest). Yet the argument, give me more time has resonance with voters. I find this incredible.

I agree with all of your points except where you claim "the issue of abortion and homosexuality was simply not a general campaign issue." It absolutely was in the minds of the young voters as well as the female voters. Most people within the age range of 18-30 vote on social issues rather than economic issues from my experience. I am in my mid-twenties and live in the mid-west.

Except for Chris Christie, who rose profoundly in my estimation for speaking out as he did about the administration's response to Hurricane Sandy. He's the closest thing to a Teddy Roosevelt we've seen in generations: a politician who says what he thinks.

I understand your point. I am trying to say it became an issue not because the Romney ticket wanted to discuss the issue. They wanted to focus on the economy. The Obama ticket, in an understandable attack, brought in these issues to paint the GOP as a throw back to the 1950's. They did this successfully. But it is inaccurate. Unfortunately, too many people, as witnessed in the above threads, will think the GOP have a war on women. Meanwhile, unemployment will jump up, economic growth will continue to slow, and we will give more and more control to the federal government under the premise that they can solve these issues. Our take home pay will go down. And those of us paying taxes will make sure people that made bad economic decisions will get a pass. Where does any of this sound fair?

The Economist, in its zeal to be balanced, seems to remember an entirely different set of events in the last 4 years. I saw Obama continually reach out in an effort to compromise, and never -- not once -- saw any such effort from House and Senate Republicans. In fact, Obama looked weak and ineffective each time he did this, and "centrist" publications equally assigned blame to each side, regardless of the facts.

I'd like to see something to back up the assertion that Obama didn't reach out to Republicans. Early in his term Obama had dinner with the likes of George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, David Brooks, and Peggy Noonan. He tried (too hard, frankly) to work with Republicans on health care reform (he even modelled his reform on Republican legislation...) and financial reform, only to be turned away and informed that the only goal Republicans had was to turn him into a one term president.

It takes two to tango, and Obama has repeatedly been left alone on the dance floor while the Republicans drink tea at the bar.

I feel compelled to point out none of the people you reference are actually elected officials. They are opinion writers that can influence how political thought is moved, but do not make policy for the party. This statement is akin to me taking something Al Gore currently says, and declaring it a democratic party policy. Mr. Gore is no more in charge of the democratic party than Mr. Will et al. Further, depending on who you talk to within the conservative movement, you will find plenty of people antagonistic to the very list you provide (the Will supporters think the Brooks supporters are too lefty and many think Noonan went loony a few years back). Big surprise, there is diversity within the movement. But you seem unable to realize it is acceptable and understandable that the opposition party does not work with the administration. They are focused on winning the next election. Naturally, from a real politic view, doing nothing was a game winner. Just like not passing a budget is a winner for the democrats. Neither party is demonstrating leadership, but is demonstrating their ability to read opinion polls. And this is a major item we fail to consider. The republican party is acting the way it is because the people they are beholden to want them to act this way. They are representing the people that sent them there. Why does it seem unreasonable to think that economic policy espoused by Paul Krugman does not find a palatable audience among the right? I, a self described conservative, do not want further federal government. I want more control at the state level. I want Congress to make laws, and not guidelines that are then transformed into laws. I want enumerated powers, not hidden, and deduced rights. I want laws that can be changed as our society changes, not set in stone as an inalienable right, and therefore, forever provided for. Why does that seem outlandish?

I realize the list of conservative thinkers is not a list of conservative legislators. Hence why I also included reference to Obama and the Dems reaching out to Republicans on actual legislation as well. My larger point is that The Economist seems to have this belief that Obama ignored conservatives and Republicans (not always the same) and failed to try and work with them or communicate with them. But that is categorically false. Obama tried, and was rebuked.

Which is totally reasonable. I agree with you completely that the Republicans (or any opposition party) has no requirement to work with the party in power. In many instances, that would be detrimental to all parties involved, both electorally and legislatively, since a loyal opposition can make legislation better.

My point was that The Economist is wrong when they try and pin the blame for the lack of cooperation entirely, or at least mostly, on Obama. He clearly tried. He tried with health care, he tried with financial regulation, and he tried with the debt ceiling. But the GOP decided to be the party of NO, and it's fallacious for The Economist to try and pretend otherwise.

I have no idea what prompted the remaining 60% of your comment discussing your desires for smaller government. My comment was much narrower than your response, and I'll keep my response to yours narrow as well.

For almost all of 2009 the democratic base was upset with the President for too much cooperation with the Republicans. His entire platform has been to allow the legislative process to work as had been outlined in the Constitution. The idea that he has not done enough to work with Congressional Republicans is not just silly... it is wrong. The mandate from this election is that those same Tea Party and extremist Republicans must amend their stance and posturing to help the nation.

Agreed that entitlement reform must be on the table over the next four years, but I believe that the GOP continuing along the same trajectory will be a completely decimated party by 2016. Whether the party is willing to change is the real question coming out of Tuesday.